Talk Is Cheap – What About Action?

For months now, some councillors have been voicing concerns about Glen Eira’s planning scheme, the zones, the way they were introduced, plus the lack of necessary ‘tools’ that council could use in determining applications. Residents themselves have taken to social media, with petitions, comments, and demands. We have consistently reported on VCAT decisions that make it abundantly clear how inept and lacking Council’s planning scheme is. People are angry and getting angrier at what they see as the destruction of their neighbourhoods and their lives.

So how do our councillors respond to this ground swell? More empty talk, more ‘we should do this’, but absolutely, no firm action from any of them! Words are cheap and ultimately useless. What is required is a simple council resolution which orders the pen pushers to get off their backsides and to immediately put the planning scheme on the table for intense and full, honest consultation with residents. Or will we continue to have more hand wringing, more crocodile tears, more blaming of VCAT, more ratepayers’ money being thrown down the drain with public relations disasters intended to excuse 13 years of negiligent planning under Newton?

Tuesday night provided some further examples of ‘we should’. As we’ve already said – talk is cheap. It is now, with the election year looming, time for action! Here’s a report on some of the comments that were made on several items.

LOBO – thought that it was time to ‘review policies’ following Plan Melbourne’s release and how the government is expecting over 7 million people in Victoria. Said it was also important to ‘review our Municipal Strategic Statement’ that ‘was adopted by council on 17th May 1999’, and accepted by the government on 5th August 1999, 16 years ago’ and in ‘light of the boom and new residents’.

SOUNNESS: said he was ‘concerned’ that even though the VCAT member rejected the 16 storey application in Egan St., Carnegie, he still stated that the height was acceptable. This then leads onto the question of an urban design framework that looks at traffic, “what’s the shape of a city’ and where density should go and ’16 storeys doesn’t meet that criteria’. And there is also a paragraph in the VCAT member’s judgement that notes ‘the absence in the scheme that provides guidance about these areas’. The decision then talks about ‘first principles’ and the design guidelines for high density developments. There is also discussion about how the Carnegie area is ‘undergoing substantial change’. He is pleased that the application was refused, but strictly on amenity design and ‘not the other features’. For him ‘a village is not 16 storeys’. ‘I have some concerns about how council’s policy framework is directed’ and that there is a ‘due process to go through in reviewing planning schemes’ and for those sections in the planning scheme that involve ‘urban villages’. He ‘hopes’ that there can be a ‘conversation about that earlier rather than later’ because if these sorts of applications for 16 storeys comes in then they are not appropriate.

HYAMS: also didn’t think that 16 storeys was appropriate and that ‘Mr Torres has assured us’ that this is against the ‘policy for the area’. Also if VCAT is ‘incapable of interpreting our policy’ then maybe there needs to be ‘policy that VCAT can understand’ so there is some ‘work that we need to do’.

We remind readers of the following facts:

The Planning Scheme was allegedly ‘reviewed’ in 2010. This was, in our view, not a real ‘review’, but a predetermined decision to do very little except tinker with the edges.

Council (or some anonymous officer with no delegated authority) applied for an extension so that more years could pass before the scheme was touched again. There was no council resolution on this and no rationale for why another two years of delay was sought. The Minister granted council an extra year.

That would take any review well into 2017 – plenty of time for suburbs, streets, and amenity to be ruined.

Lobo was badly criticized on this forum some two years ago. He is fondly liked by numerous residents and enjoys a good name in Glen Eira community. He and his family are regular church goers. He is a black horse.

Lobo is way out of his depth, unlike other Councillors, I have no doubt about his genuine desire to service the people he represents. However, he has been utterly ineffective as a Councillor and after 6 years as a Councillor for Tucker Ward residents are wondering why he should be re-elected.

In the face of what’s happening to his ward, fondness, good name, regular churchgoers although worthy qualities are not whats needed. What’s needed is someone who can make their presence felt in the Council Chamber and argue effectively for change based on a solid understanding of Glen Eira’s Planning Scheme and Administrative processes.

Thanks for your service Oscar but I won’t be voting for you next time around.

Sound ness changes like a weather in his comments and sides with Pilling who was asked to leave the green party as he went against the party policies having been financially supported by the Green party. Joker Sound ness is a Joker in a pack of cards. What has he done for his party and Pilling has dumped him high and dry in various green issues.

The only Councillor who makes any sense, or shows any sign of actually hearing what residents are saying, in the above report is Sounness. While it’s easy to bash him for many comments and decisions he made when first elected, I think he is the only Councillor showing any understanding the inadequacies of Glen Eira’s Planning Scheme. I also am relieved that he, and again is the only one, showing signs of stepping outside the Administration’s shadow and express this view.

Elected at the same time as Okotel and Delahunty, he has left them gathering dust. He is also way ahead of all the others who are well past their use by date.

Sounness may be one of the few councillors to have any idea about the shortcomings of the planning scheme. What has he done about it? In Glen Eira there is no point in uttering a few sentences. As long as decisions are being made by administrators and behind closed doors, then his utterances are useless. What does need to happen is a public, open debate in chamber and direct answers to a whole bevy of questions from residents.

The candidates and MP’s from Green party think they are self righteous. It is heard from authentic circles they are not in favour of keeping animals in cages in zoo’s and they want them to let loose. Can you imagine this clever and intelligent idea? Can you imagine Greens will ever be a government, if so God save the Queen if not, God save Australia republic.

Shame Tommo, did raise the same issues when the 12 stories was approved for the Glicks site or Princess site. Note a lot of difference between 12 and 16 stories in a village area in my view. But, without elucidating the difference he made a political point,

It’s just that like most residents I can’t work out what that political point is, other than better late than never.

I will give Lobo credit here for revealing how unimportant councillors and how little most of them are told. The decision to letter drop and spend public money was made by officers. Lobo didn’t know and most of the other councillors wouldn’t have known either I suspect.

I do wonder whether our councillors had some ideals at the start and some had expectations to represent ratepayers who voted for them. I think they may have started their terms with some ideals but were then sucked into the vortex of the administration which has completely dominated their responses to the issues they have confronted. I think that some new blood on council may approach issues with confidence to challenge the administrators of this appalling council we now have. I live in hope that out representatives will change and with the resignation of our appalling CEO will bring about a new and hopeful future for this city